FSDO followups on equipment probkems reported to ATC?

One of our club aircraft was recently on an IFR flight plan in VMC. The
instrument student and his instructor noted that the DG was precessing
excessively. They eventually canceled the flight plan and returned to
their point of origin VFR.

In canceling with ATC, they mentioned something about the DG having a
problem.

Later that day, the club received a call from the FSDO about the "vacuum
failure" experienced by one of our aircraft.

I've since chatted with the [nice] fellow from the FSDO myself (as one of
the people involved in aircraft maintenance in the club). He explained
that this was a part of a long-standing policy. Equipment failures that
are reported to ATC are reported by ATC to the local FSDO. The FSDO
checks into this, confirming that the problem was "resolved" by a mechanic
before the aircraft flies again.

The example he used was that of an RG with a flickering gear light.
Assume the pilot reports the light to the tower. Further assume that the
landing is uneventful (ie. the gear holds) and the flickering stops after
landing. In this case, the FSDO is going to check that the aircraft
received maintenance before it was flown again.

I asked about the case where the above landing occurred at a field w/o
services. He said that a mechanic should be brought in before the plane
is flown to confirm that the gear is down and locked.

There was a significant level of ambiguity in what I was told. He
mentioned several times in the explanation that part of the trigger in the
case of our aircraft was cancellation of the flight plan. I pointed out
that I'd canceled IFR flight plans plenty of times. He then said that the
difference was that my cancellations were typically when starting a visual
approach to my intended airport, and the event under discussion involved
an airplane not reaching its original destination.

I pointed out that, once I was VFR, nobody knows where I land. He agreed
with a little confusion.

I know that the FAA has an interest in assuring that aircraft with
problems are repaired. So do pilots.

But I have never heard of this before. I wonder how well this
long-standing policy handles subtleties like a VFR flight in an aircraft
with a too-quickly precessing DG. And what are the possible sanctions?

I was a little afraid to ask about that last point laugh.

Is anyone familiar with this policy? I'd love to see some of the gaps
filled in.

Thanks...

Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/